|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 34 post(s) |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:56:00 -
[1]
Killed a good ship... /me spits -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 20:49:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Lindsay Logan But it makes no sense. The citadels are the size of frigs. How do you expact a frig to fire other frigs
Bombs (if changed) would be far better.
Do you know how these ships are built in reality? Let me explain it in clear: Recipe of a tcship, basic version: 1. Get a big tube 2. Loaded it with one HUGE missile 3. Glue some engines, fuel bay, living bays and so on. 4. Add a few self-defences, mainly Ewar kind, to allow ships to GTFO if situation begin to boil. 5. Ergo, you have ship that can 1-shot even a Carrier.
Originally by: Vall Kor EDIT: and LOL at the "anti-bs" role.... I'd rather BS be anti-bs. The DPS lost because you wanted to bring SBs is a reason NOT to bring SBs. Cruises OR torps, not just torps.
Cruises and FIXED bombs, not joke and joke.
Originally by: Nyxus Bombs are AoE. That's hell to try to balance. Bring down the cost a bit is about the only thing that I can see making it worthwhile but still balanced.
Changing that much easier than killing a whole ship class. Or, you said, just change ammo to fire Citadel torps. Leave one launcher per ship as it is now. MAY BE add AoE effect to the Citadel Torps (that would be interesting change, confirm?)
Quote: After looking at the price of citadel launchers, just modify Bomb launchers to be able to launch citadel torps. Tweak explosion radius and damage bonus and it should be good. The low velocity on Citadel Torps would require the bomber stay uncloaked and only target large ships. It should also make the recloaking delay unnecessary.
Needs some calculations, I hope it sounds promising, but with 1 launcher per SB it'll fall in the same category as torpedo-bombers. To trash.
Quote: It would also make them immensely fun, but relatively fragile. It would encourage more mixing of fleets.
Unless four SB could ultimately 2-volley PWN a battleship, it's all about loosing the afterdinner winds. They dealing more damage. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 20:55:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Lindsay Logan No, and neither do you!
How could you know? Do you know me IRL? -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 21:04:00 -
[4]
I have a better idea. Turn bomb launchers into bombs itself. Activating it will produce a huge AoE blast to all nearby ships excluding other SB. However, it'll destroy your ship too (how could you wish to survive sitting on a bomb?) Much better fun that these proposed changes! -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 22:06:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin Ok, this is much better, but still needs some work.
Wrong, it's need a well-fed cow to produce enough crap to bury it as deep as possible.
Quote:
Quote: 1. Bombers will be able to fit covert ops cloak
However they will have a 30 second cloak reactivation delay. This means they can warp in cloaked and better surprise their targets in a true ambush. However once they are committed to the fight, they will not be able to recloak quickly as a drawback so choosing the right time to strike is essential.
This is fair. My only concern here is getting de-cloaked by objects. With the current covops ships, you can almost immediately re-cloak as soon as you get out of range of the object, but bombers are going to be exposed for a full 30 seconds.
Which means, they were never been and will never be cloaked. Dead, yes, cloaked - no.
Quote: Would it be possible to code the delay so it is only triggered once you activate weapons? That way you're still forced to spend a full 30 seconds uncloaked if you want to engage a target, but don't run into problems moving around.
Too many "if"s, EVE server laggy enough by itself, don't you think so?
Quote: 1) Torps are redundant. You already have a short-range, high-damage weapon: bombs. And it's even a weapon that is most effective against battleships. If you fix bombs correctly (most importantly, reduce the absurd cost), the only reason you'd ever need to use torps on a bomber is if you refuse to remove the 0.0-only limitation.
This.
Quote: 3) Wasted skills suck. Since stealth bombers are the only cruise missile ship (or even missile ship at all) for a lot of players, changing them to use torps means wasted SP, especially if they trained T2 cruise.
Who cares, really
Quote: But as I said in the other thread, there is a better way of doing this:
1) Introduce a special bomber-only weapon: covert warhead launcher. You can load one of two options:
Why damn if we already have one? Isn't that enough? Just change stats of bomb launcher.
Quote: a) 5x cruise missiles.
OR
b) 1x bomb.
The launcher itself has a very high ROF, meaning if you go with cruise missiles, you will have very good dps as long as your missiles last.
DPS is nothing for missiles, more, it's a JOKE. Missiles should be Alfa weapon. I'm begin to feel that this would be a root issue with missiles also the proper way to fix them and give them that needed alteration, instead of beeing just delayed guns.
Quote: However, there are two penalties:
a) Small capacity. You do huge dps, but only for a very short time.
Why would I prefer to load a bomb if I can fire cruise missiles for the same or better damage? Assuming that bombs remains AoE, they wouldn't touch a single target hard enough, and I've never been in a position, where AoEing could change anything on a serious scale. Normal distance between ships - 15-20 km, max I can cover by 4 bombs is 2 ships... Perfomance = Result/Effort < 1
Quote: b) Long reload time. As in, a full minute or so (ideally with just the standard 10 seconds if you reload out of combat to change missile types).
I've had the same idea, but I've never thought about that in the light of mixing two ammo types in one ship. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 22:19:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Lindsay Logan
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Lindsay Logan No, and neither do you!
How could you know? Do you know me IRL?
Makes no difference, there are no future space ships in the current RL.
So, that answer was no. Then, please do not make any assumptions based on your lack of knowledge any more. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 22:58:00 -
[7]
Bomb launcher. Interesting device as it is (not currently, but it could) Look.
Duration: 26.14-32.68 sec (Leading to 20-25 sec top skills) Capacity: 0.3 (One Citadel Torp or 6x Cruise missiles) Used With: Citadel Torps + Cruise Missiles (Thus NO FoF missiles, leaving it vulnerable to almost any EWar) Charge Rate: 0.33 or 3 - whatever will put it to 30sec reload.
Device Bonus: Doubles the Citadel Torp explosion velocity. Resulting in, for 3x Bomb Launchers fitted and active, with top skills:
43.5 m/s *2 *2 *2 = 348 m/s Fairplay in it's proper position.
Next the ship bonuses. 16.66% reduction in Cruise Missiles and Citadel Torpedoes explosion radius per Racial Frigate. 5% increase in racial missile damage per CO level. 5% increase in Citadel Torpedo velocity per CO level (needed increase, they are slow as hell, really, even with high skills) No damage bonus for Frigate skill - no need when we have really working close-range solution. Impact spot: 176 mm with 348m/s - not gonna instapwn anything. Not with current Missile "Damage" formula. But dangerous, certainly dangerous for bigger targets. BS surely, and even slow BC could fall victim to pack of such beasts. Resulting Volley damage from Citadel Torps: 9281.25 (Note: it's RAW damage, it WILL be mitigated by target's speed and sig radius) Problem is that, if you're using torps, you effectively limiting yourself to one volley per minute. There'll be NO DPS for Torps, unless you shooting a POS or dread in siege - then with all there reloads you could afford to calculate the "DPS" of your launchers. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 23:03:00 -
[8]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis However we still believe this new direction and role is far better
Better for whom? Finish your sentence please.
Quote: than the role they currently have in spite of the success some of you have had with these. The role really made no sense overall that we would have a bomber using large missiles in an anti-frigate role.
If it made no sence for you, it's your problem. For some of us, it's last case why we still playing this (your) game after years. You repeatedly killed every and each of our ships, now we only have SB, and you killing even them. Why you just not say "Guys, sorry, but I don't care about your wishes, I just want your money, if you don't want to pay - leave and free the field for other donators"?
Quote: Focusing the ship class as anti-large ship with the addition of a covert ops cloak and high volley damage is a role that has much more utility and purpose as part of gangs that the potential the bomber has now.
You choosed a wrong hull to focus, that's what were told to you, but you apparently not listening. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 23:35:00 -
[9]
Originally by: retro mike
Chronotis you have underestimated the feelings towards the proposed changes to the Bomber and I am sickened by your attitude towards the majority of pilots on this thread.
In both threads (12 pages both, will this one be cut again?) -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 00:40:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Defeated Please keep proving what i just wrote. So now everyone who disagrees with you is clueless, and it's also an outrage in caps, because caps makes it true. Also, you didn't count, you pulled 95% out of your rectum.
But like i said, please keep raging.
95% was exaggeration, it was merely 60%, not counting "LOL nice changes CCP indeed". Other 40% was split in agreement and cautious curiosity. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 00:48:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Defeated Yep, but it's the "AYAYAYAY I DONT KNOW WHATS HAPPENING YET BUT IT WILL DESTROY MY WORLD AYAYAYA FIRE ALL CCP AND EXECUTE A RANDOM GREAT PANDA IN GANSU. I WROTE IT IN CAPS SO YOU MUST LISTEN CCP AYAYAYAY" people that makes the most noise, if you get what i mean :p
Certainly. But, excuse me, when these changes go live, it'll be one more nail in a casket of my willing to play eve. ****ed probing system, useless ship class that i'm trained for, and my Sacrilege that i'll never fly because she alone is not enough to attract me to the whole game. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 00:49:00 -
[12]
P.S. Damps nerf and OPHIC's was two previous most bright changes that I can remember to now. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 21:36:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Polinus
Originally by: OneSock How are you supposed to alpha small targets with torps ? Does not compute.
Stick with cruise and range bonuses.
with target painters... 4 hounds.. 1 TP each. Can insta pop a HAC. 1 shot.. 1 kill..
Where you saw such puny HC? 4 hounds is like 20k Alfa. My PvE Sacrilege has more EHP and with 7 sec duration can eat you for breakfast. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 21:53:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Vall Kor Those are some good points. For the devs; Why can't we have a choice between the two (cruise or torp)?
Told you - CPU issues. the amount of CPU that allow you to barely fit T1 torp launchers, will more than allow you to fit strong cruise missile boat. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 22:18:00 -
[15]
Originally by: retro mike Edited by: retro mike on 01/04/2009 22:05:20
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Vall Kor Those are some good points. For the devs; Why can't we have a choice between the two (cruise or torp)?
Told you - CPU issues. the amount of CPU that allow you to barely fit T1 torp launchers, will more than allow you to fit strong cruise missile boat.
Yes we can have a choice between the two. Introduce the Torp model as a new shiptype. Simple isnt it when u think 3D
STEALTH PRECISION BOMBER using existing cruise setup, with explosion radius/velocity bonus
STEALTH HEAVY BOMBER using proposed torpedo setup
I like the sound of these, they have a nice ring to their names.........
WE HAVE ENOUGH STEALTH IN GAME Even stealth transports! Better stop now and forever. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 22:21:00 -
[16]
Originally by: RedSplat That could be tweaked by having separate CPU use reductions for Cruise and Torp launchers on the same SB hull; is there actually any hard cap on the number of boni a ship can have, i've never spotted such in any of the literature?
None as you can see if you take a look at, say, titans or Moms. They are brightly paint in different bonuses. But aside from technical possibility, there's simple rule of sanity. You already have short-range dumb SB-only UNUSED weapon - bombs. FIX THEM DAMN DONT TAKE WHAT WE HAVE BUT FIX WHAT WE DONT HAVE. You want us to use Short or long range? Here you have Cruise long and bombs short. Fix bombs, or, really, allow us to fire citadel torps. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 22:41:00 -
[17]
Originally by: retro mike I just had to reduce your character size, it was way too big. You must be a pirate to come up with such a lame opinion btw
You didn't hit the air even. I'm pretty much civilian citizen. But, opposing to you, I can take the place of other players for a moment. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 20:38:00 -
[18]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Make a separate bomber class for this new role
This is certainly a please everyone scenario and perfectly logical suggestion by many of you to not cause any unhappiness at all. However we feel that this approach would not work besides being the "path of least resistance". There are some of you who have found a role and strategy that works for you and have dedicated time to specialising in that role and are rightfully critical of having that altered to a new role requiring a change of strategy.
This approach would not work just because there's enough stealth in game. Told ya. Glad you see that we have right to criticise the changes. However, our rights does not matter at all, right?
Quote: However we believe the vast majority of pilots would and will prefer the new role
They will prefer the new ship, not new role. And only because it have CO cloak. Bigger cargobay will come in hand too. Remove CO cloak and let's see who will be flying it...
Quote: and the handful who are left preferring the old role in a ship that as we originally stated had missed our original intention for the bomber class
It have had too strong bonuses to sound such fallacy now. Explosion sig radius were always adjusted to be under smallest frigate ragar sig even. It wasn't touched, not even mentioned in the last SB rework as I recall. For me, it is proved as a lie. Sad to see you as a person choosed to make it public.
Quote: would be left happy but we would have a ship class rarely used and a victim of legacy.
Fix bombs... or just replace them by Citadel torps. Apply same bonus to them as to Cruise Missile explosion radius, make it overall smaller, so it'll be a bit harder to attack Frigates, but not impossible. 15 or even 14 percent not looks too scary, although almost deny to use solo bombers against frigates. Smallest I can get is 60.75mm with T2 precision missiles, 123.75 with Fury. Not big a threat to frigates, but certain problem for bigger classes. Add a rate of fire penalty similar to destroyers if you inclined. At the same time, 225mm Citadel torp explosion would pose a treat against bigger targets. But with almost zero DPS (one launcher should be able to load only one torp, and whole fire-reload cycle must be no shorter than a minute) you'll need a dedicated tackler or very good teamwork.
Quote: It is much better to evolve the original ships role to where it has a better place and part to play in the game than leave a relic ship class that makes little sense to most even if the transition is a painful one, it is a much preferred approach for us.
A polite "Adapt or die". Ok, you killed me. You happy now? I was seriously considering to come back to active playing EVE in two months, when my current workload ease. Now... guess.
Quote: Dual bonus to both cruise and torpedoes
No comments. I said already, it will never work. And said, why.
Quote: The bomber when combined with other ships in a gang becomes an incredible provider of damage and that is where its focus is at.
Please explain your view of such gang. You were always avoiding this question, but you can't dodge it all the time.
Quote: It is quite possible despite its perceived survivability rating that you could come up with a strategy which allows you to solo targets. Never underestimate the right scenario and player :)
I saw solo BS kills in SB already. They was without required fitting to fight frigates, indeed. Will not be surprised if that happens again. And again. You know, exceptions only prove the rule. Not making it. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 20:38:00 -
[19]
Quote: Citadel launchers we can see some merit in this but the stealth bomber class is not the place for such a huge launcher and missile (very costly as well).
It sounds like bombs are cheaper...
Quote: That would be more suited to a bigger ship playing an anti capital ship role (who knows what is in store for the remaining unreleased T2 ships)
If you do it right, it'll barely be treatening to battleships. Torps damage scheme are laughable, and without explosion velocity bonus it's speedtanked even without an AB. But perfectly fulfill the niche you want - a huge damage dealing frigate. May even be used to dismantle cinojammers. Altough it'll take forever to play warp-shoot-warp-reload game...
Quote: Cloaked velocity vs explosion velocity vs sig radius bonuses
CO cloak is just a bad move. This ship will be used for it, not for it's damaging abilities. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 20:49:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Quote: Citadel launchers we can see some merit in this but the stealth bomber class is not the place for such a huge launcher and missile (very costly as well).
It sounds like bombs are cheaper...
Note: I didn't mentioned Citadel LAUNCHER anywhere. It was meant to fire Citadel Torps from BOMB LAUNCHER. As in RL, you could design a stripped version of packet missile launcher to fire only one missile... all you need is to find a water tube of proper diameter and length, then anchor it to something which wouldn't fly together with the missile. The tube work as initial guide, also protecting you from missile fires. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 12:24:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Sigras what is wrong with you people? this is not a nerf, this is a buff to the role youre SUPPOSED to use the stealth bomber for.
It is not a buff, not a nerf, it's a twist. Read my post above. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 12:30:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin Actually it isn't. When the Khanid ships were changed to short-range missile boats, nobody got any SP reimbursed. I wouldn't expect bombers to be any different.
Khanid ships were a HALF of the class. For Vengeance, you have Retribution For Malediction - Crusader, and Malediction have kept their turret hardpoints. For <3 Sacrilege - Zealot, and the 4 turret hardpoints for the times you need them, such as retraining. For Damnation - Absolution (Albeit, this was a hit - complete different ships, being in same class, they have drastically different skill requirements)
Now, for Purifier - ? Sorry, not gonna work that way. Bad business. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 12:39:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Marcus Druallis Yet all I read in S&M for like a month was how crap they are? People need to make up their minds or CCP will not have any idea in which direction to go.
If you mean "people should enthusiastically agree with any change CCP propose" - not gonna happen. I've spent time and money training for SB as they are... were. I (we!) have spent months of time and pile of paper to play tactical games. Two calculators died before we went to table processor to do the maths faster and more efficient. SB is... was a precision tool for specific tasks, and it was good, excellent in doing that. Assuming the pilot isn't a complete idiot and can at least follow the common scheme. What now? You can few volley a lone BS. Told you what? I saw lone BS 2 times. One Hyperion and one Tempest. Most of the time it's no less than 2 BS plus at least one EWar cruiser escort. Or it is mixed Cruiser/BC/HAC gand of 3-5 ppl roaming around. What you can do to them? You could kill one probably, but you'll pay two-fold for that kill. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 12:42:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Lindsay Logan The current changes outweight the old sb pilots opinions since now its a ship that is actally worth somthing, not a wothless noob gangker. A ship that got a role, and an importent one at that.
Yes, good covert hauler is the role.
Quote: Also, a game desinger can not listen to the cries of all the players all the time, some eggs must be broken to make omelets. Cause lets face it, the curret SB on TQ sucks. It can work marginally in some obscure roles, and even then a sniping ship does the job better, or a proper dps ship.
Where you saw cries? Even first thread were started from constructive suggestions before cries. To the eggs - we have egg that never bore a chicken - the bomb launcher. Why not use it instead if ruin the ship itself? -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 12:57:00 -
[25]
Originally by: HEPBHOE OKOH4AHUE Battle occurs at range of 15 kilometres, so turrets are ineffective
Blaster Hyperion can reach well over 20km with reasonable tracking. Apoc/abaddon with pulse - well, optimal is 19km. Autocannon Minnie ships - you know. Same as blasters, just better. Caldari - Cruise - don't mind range, Torp - net a threat to frigate. Blasters - better than Gallente just for optimal - they can compensate lack of DMG bonus through heavier ammo at the same optimal. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 13:19:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Gartel Reiman
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Marcus Druallis Yet all I read in S&M for like a month was how crap they are? People need to make up their minds or CCP will not have any idea in which direction to go.
If you mean "people should enthusiastically agree with any change CCP propose" - not gonna happen.
I think the point was more than many, many people agree(d) that Stealth Bombers performed really badly in practice and there was almost no situation where they were effective. Certainly that's my belief and the opinion I got in general from reading S&M.
How much of those many actually flown a bomber in separate CO operations or as separate CO squad in fleet? Not as k00l substitution of BS? Zero? Less than zero?
Quote: However, now there seem to be a lot of pilots claiming "nooooo, I love my Stealh Bomber the way it is now, it's really good" - a sentiment I haven't seen up until now.
Until now, there were no signs of attempt to remove class of ships from game. This is precedent. (Imagine WoW without priests or Lineage without archers)
Quote: Being opposed to the changes because you disagree with the implementation and concept is entirely fine and valid. Disagreeing to the changes because you don't think any changes are necessary, when we as a community have been pushing for some fix to these broken ship for a while now, is just weird.
There was many suggestions to fix bombers even before 3rd launcher (you remember these times?), then we got a short-range weapon system that was never been used widely, thus I think it is safe to assime that system was dead-born and need a rewrite from scratch. Instead of that, we got - what? Another short-range weapon system for a price of existing long-range. Even capital ships, most specialized ships in EVE, have option to fit long or short range weapon. SB going to have no option at all.
Quote:
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Lindsay Logan The current changes outweight the old sb pilots opinions since now its a ship that is actally worth somthing, not a wothless noob gangker. A ship that got a role, and an importent one at that.
Yes, good covert hauler is the role.
Well, something had to take the Pilgrim's crown. Though, it's a little outclassed by the blockade runners for that...
Pilgrim is a Recon... a bit of a training, as well as industrial ships. For CO frig - it's like two weeks top, am I right?
Quote: To my mind it does have a very good role now, exactly what you would expect from a frigate-sized bomber - the ability to deliver heavy ordnance against larger targets while being quick and fragile.
It's slow as brick and lack any defence against anything smaller than biggest BS.
Quote: Cruise SBs don't do enough damage against larger targets to be worthwhile,
Noticed you've never saw SB gang in action. Cruise damage bonused by sig radius = unavoidable full damage to any large target.
Quote: and don't hit smaller targets well enough to be worthwhile.
Although I don't really care about small targets, it's still effective to shoot down something unaware of your presence.
Quote: Now with torps, battleships and especially BCs will be severely troubled by an SB that they can't hit.
And everything else will be happy to eat you for breakfast. And everything else is what you face most of the time. Well, me face.
Quote:
Quote: To the eggs - we have egg that never bore a chicken - the bomb launcher. Why not use it instead if ruin the ship itself?
Admittedly bombs could use some attention. However, if the bombers are going to get bonuses and a role for fitting battleship-class weaponry, then that weapons system should also be balanced and viable completely independent of bombs.
Can't really understand what you're trying to say. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 15:02:00 -
[27]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Bombs
We are looking at increasing the batch count from 3 to 20 per manufacturing run. This means the material cost of bombs will be near 800k using current TQ prices.
Does that mean that bombs still be wasting DB space without any real use? -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 23:51:00 -
[28]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Allowing both blink and ambush attacks would lead to a very overpowered bomber. It would be great if we could allow both strategies through module selection but this is not really possible currently so we favoured the possibilities the covert ops cloaks provides over 'blink' though think when combined with other tactics, you can still 'blink' successfully against a wide range of targets though it will be harder with the current changes we concur.
You can do this. However, that would include stopping from toying with your fil idea and actually listen to people. Which you do not want at all.
Solution is simple as snow in the winter: Bomb Launcher. The bombs as they are now just useless crap. Whatever bonuses you could put on them, unless they are direct damage weapon - they are crap. Just drop bombs away and replace by Citadel torps. Just citadels, or with bombs as a spare - I dont' care, but allow fitting 3 bomb launchers per ship. Place bonus on bomb launcher: -33.3% Cloaking CPU increase bonus, 5sec cloaking reactivation time increase. 3 bomb launchers = you can fit CO cloak, but it'll be 15 sec reactivation delay as intended. Here you can choose your tactic. Cruise blink or torpedo ambush. As I said, if you that inclined on denying SB any survivability, drop bonus to explosion radius to the 15-14% from current 16.6. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 23:53:00 -
[29]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Murashu CCP Chronotis,
Since you are ignoring those of us who are against these changes, could you please consider adding bombs in low sec?
Not ignoring anyone at all and have listened and read every post, especially the critics of the idea (remember listening is not the same as agreeing with). We just have not personally responded to every post and tend to respond generally to the most common suggestions.
re: bombs in low sec - not ruling it out in the future, but we have to think long and hard about the impact it has. Low sec has different rules and a different sandpit to null sec. Mixing weapons designed for null sec with low sec inst as trivial as it sounds though we can see why some of you would want it.
You have already destroyed lowsec with unpenaltized unavoidable 30km disruptors. How the bombs could make things worse? -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 00:01:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon Cruise missiles are usefull for other thigns than bomber. Changing skills is nonsense.Specially because there is alot of people that woudl want to maintain their skill as they are now. So woudl be a herculean work to ask each one of the 300k players if they want a change or not for his char.
Just train torpedos.. 2 weeks won't kill anyone.
Do you know any Amarr ship that could fir Cruise missiles? Or torps... after Purifier? (Yes, I do fly Amarr... Well, Khanid, if that matters) -- Thanks CCP for cu |
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 10:40:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon ...god forbid you have to crosstrain a little bit....
I'm not a slave of my god. If he make bad things i tell him. If he decline to listen, i kill him. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:09:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Lindsay Logan Don't Guided Missile Precision only affect guided missiles, like Cruise and Heavy?
They are, as explicitly said in skill description. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 17:16:00 -
[33]
It's 20-30 km because any more range plain useless. you can't stop target from warping off from 60km, and by the time your torps reach the place where your target was from that range, she'll be far, far away from you. Some a.u. away. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 01:19:00 -
[34]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Thanks, we read your suggestions previously in your earlier post and the feedback from yourself has been excellent along with the many other participants and they will definitely be taken into consideration as ever (as we hope as been made clear that we enjoy the open approach to changes and feedback we have taken).
Translation from CCP's english to basic english: "We are happy to hear people who are happy with what we want to do, for those unhappy, Title reads: Your opinion is very important for all these men.". Peace, guys... -- Thanks CCP for cu |
|
|
|